suggestions on upgrading to a new pc

In article , John Turco
wrote:

Do you have any idea, how Photoshop Elements compares with Paint Shop Pro,
in terms of both power and simplicity? (PSP has been my favorite graphics
program, for over a decade.)

no idea, i've never used paint shop pro.

"John Turco" wrote in message
...
[]
Hello, Bob:

Same here, with Windows. Starting in 1995, I've run 3.1, 95, 98SE,
Millennium
and now XP...and very seldom have had any of the problems that you
mentioned,
above.

Incidentally, my next PC build will involve Vista Home Premium 64-bit
(with
SP1).

--
Cordially,

John, you may find Windows-7 even better than Vista SP1. Vista is now
SP2, by the way.

Cheers,
David

(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
ray wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

And using the computer will be slower from day one because you'll have
to spend more time taking care of the OS.

How is that? I've found just exactly the opposite to be true. No virus
scans, no disk defragmentation needed, . . .

All file systems in common use are subject to fragmentation. Some
OS's make defragmentation invisible. Some require a little more
setup.

All OS's are subject to virus infection. Some are targeted more than
others.

Total bull**** on each count.

Before you try that gambit you should make sure that you have your
facts straight. You didn't.

There are file systems where fragmentation simply is not
a problem.

If you weren't an idiot you'd have noticed that I didn't refer to ALL
file systems.

What you actually did say is quoted above. "All file
systems in common use ..."

Which does not refer to all files systems, idiot.

Wake up.

Stop being a stupid ass.

My set (all modern unix filesystems) is a
superset of your "in common use" set.

No, moron, it isn't.

Yes, Mr. Fischer, it is. Denial will not change facts.

There are *many* filesystems in common use that do not
suffer problems with fragmentation.

Name some. Keep in mind that the three most common filesystems are
MacOS HFS+, NTFS, and DOS.

Virtually every FS used by OSX, Linux, and the BSDs.

All of which can suffer from file fragmentation.

There is no "suffer" involved. Fragmentation does not
affect system operation, and there is *never* any need
for, nor any value to, use of a defragmentation tool.

In fact, there is no defragmentation tool!

Not all OS's are subject to virus infections. Try to
find a virus that will infect Linux or one of the BSD
OS's without being manually installed by the root user.

Bliss. 12 years ago.

Idiot.

"remains chiefly a research curiosity" is the way the Wikipedia
page for Bliss describes it.

Because it was the first virus.

It's a laboratory experiment, not a threat to Linux.

You're an idiotcultist and not credible,

Facts are facts Ray, no matter what how you describe
yourself.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 22 Aug 2009 18:29:04 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

TheRealSteve wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009 03:25:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
TheRealSteve wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:30:03 +0100, Chris H
In message , ray
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:20:44 -0400, Giftzwerg wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

So it's quite obvious that using GIMP on Linux (if it meets his
requirements) would be a big advantage. Even more when he does not
need to upgrade versions in the near future.

big if. gimp is nowhere near what photoshop cs4 is. any why wouldn't he
need to upgrade?

It says volumes about the "quality" of garbage like GIMP that people
will pay $600 for Photoshop when GIMP is free.

Especially when they'll gladly pay that $600 without even TRYING GIMP to
see if it will do what they need or not.

I did try Gimp. It is not as good as photoshop... not quite true there
is a learning curve with photoshop. For many Elements may be better.

For others, Gimp is better than photoshop. That would include anyone
who cares about the quality of the resampling necessary when you
resize, rotate images, correct distortions, etc. Gimp has the option
of using the much superior sinc-lanzcos interpolation.

Not only are you an idiot, you're a dishonest idiot. Nobody cares
about your "sinc-lanzcos interpolation" because it doesn't actually
make any difference that anybody notices.

Just because *YOU* don't care about the quality of your images

Just because you're an anal-retentive idiot with no artistic ability
doesn't mean that anybody else should care about your little cult.

Thank you for proving yet again how childish you are.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:54:17 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , TheRealSteve
writes

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:23:07 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , Jürgen Exner
writes
Chris H wrote:
In message , Bob Larter
writes
So Linux has an autoupdate facility like Windows and OSX?

Depends on the distro, but yes, for the ones I run.

Not for the one you are running but for "linux"

That question is non-sensical. A kernel cannot auto-update itself in a
meaningful way

Correct. So Linux is not auto updating. *SOME* distributions are,
others are not and some have disappeared as they are no longer
supported.

Windows is not autoupdating either then. *SOME* versions are, others
are not and some have disappeared as they are no longer supported.

So what's your point?

Correct some VERSIONS of windows are no longer updated. MANY versions
and indeed complete distributions of linux have gone.

Windows will not go but the Linux you are using might.... many (most)
have

Actually, you're quite wrong there. Windows is absolutely gauranteed
to "go". At least in the sense that the version you're currently
using will no longer be supported at the whim of MS.

On the other hand, versions of Linux can be supported for much longer
because it's not only the company who created that can provide
support. The company can disappear altogether and you can still get
support.

but auto-update is an application like a text editor or a
spreadsheet program or a compiler and as such available with many (all?)
distributions if you want it.

So it is not as user friendly as Windows.... tick here auto update...
The average computer user has their PC set to auto update by the shop
they got it from.... "everything" is installed.

Same with linux. You do not need to do anything. They come with
autoupdate turned on out of the box. You don't even need to "tick
here."

*ALL* of them?

Trick question as this can no possibly be yes.

ALL of the ones I use, yes. *ALL* of them? I'm guessing no. The
answer is no for Windows.

Steve

In message , Bob Larter
writes
Chris H wrote:
In message , Bob Larter
writes
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
Chris H wrote:
In message , ray
writes
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:19:43 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

Yeah. Great idea. Using Linux you won't have to stoop to using
second- rate image editing software like, oh, PhotoShop, Aperture,
Lightroom ... and the software that comes with your camera.

Briiiiiilliant.
I see you have not tried Linux recently and have no idea what is
available.
i see you haven't tried any of the listed applications. hint:
nothing on
linux comes close.
One absolute undeniable advantage of Linux. You can try it out
and SEE if
it meets your needs with minimal investment. An install will take about
20 minutes and an outlay of $0 cash.
How do I do that? I will either need a spare PC or remove windows from
my current PC, and then be able to put Windows and all the app back
again. That is either a lot of cost or a lot of time.
Do you know what a Live CD is?
Yep. It's slooooow.
Of course it is, but it means you can try out a distro without
formatting a drive, etc. You obviously can't do that with Windows.
Don't need to. "All" computers have Windows pre-installed... :-)

False. I have exactly one PC with Windows installed (by me, from an OEM
CDROM), all the rest came with blank HDs & are running various flavours
of Linux.

You are correct but as 90% of PC users "know" *ALL* PC's come fitted
with Windows as standard. I have had many PC uses completely unaware of
Mac's or UNIX. You are not dealing with hard reality but mass market
perceptions


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article , says...

there's one thing Linux does well - servers. On the user desktop, it's
just ****. It doesn't run a single world-class application except
FireFox.

Open Office,

Garbage.

PostgreSQL,

Server application irrelevant to the desktop user.

Oracle,

Server application irrelevant to the desktop user.

Apache

Server application irrelevant to the desktop user.



--
Giftzwerg
***
"It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare
legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been
cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a
tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of
Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan - it's the rest of us
guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves."
- Camille Paglia

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:59:30 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Giftzwerg wrote:
In article ,
says...

The guy *already uses CS4 and Lightroom*; he's already chosen the
two flat-out best photo-editing tools out there. That he throw that
investment in time, money, and effort out the window just to
experience the brilliance of Linux is so over-the-top insane that
anyone who suggests it should have his bones broken with an iron
rod.
The guy also has a painfully slow computer that shouldn't be

No. Wrong. He has an over one year old PC that he's looking to
upgrade:

"machine is slowing a bit around 1 1/2 yr old looking to upgrade to a
new one"

Yet another example of how Windows boxes get sluggish if they're not
constantly maintained.

Another example of cult propaganda from someone who doesn't know
Windows.

It seems to be a fairly common problem - I know a couple of techs who
work for different computer shops - they both report that's the bulk of
their businuess. Does it have to be? Probably not - but it does take
extra work to manage properly - and more expertise than the average user
has.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:13:43 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

Once you've got a Linux box configured the way you want it, it just
runs. No defragging, no Registry cleaning, no anti-virus crap slowing
down the system, etc, etc.


Hello, Bob:

Same here, with Windows. Starting in 1995, I've run 3.1, 95, 98SE,
Millennium and now XP...and very seldom have had any of the problems
that you mentioned, above.

Incidentally, my next PC build will involve Vista Home Premium 64-bit
(with SP1).

Wait for Windows 7. Last I read, it's suppose to be released in October,
but even if it isn't, wait until it is. And I wouldn't opt for getting
Vista with a free upgrade to 7 either. I've never been a big fan of
"upgrading" across OS versions. Too many problems. Clean installs are
less problematical.

So, stick with XP until 7 is released, then get or build that new system.


--
Fotoguy
BestInClass.com
"Personalized digital camera recommendations"
http://www.bestinclass.com/digital-cameras

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Virtually every FS used by OSX, Linux, and the BSDs.

All of which can suffer from file fragmentation.

There is no "suffer" involved. Fragmentation does not
affect system operation, and there is *never* any need
for, nor any value to, use of a defragmentation tool.

In fact, there is no defragmentation tool!

yes there are. here's a few:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/defragfs/
http://www.rpmseek.com/rpm/defrag_0....=com&cx=594:D:
0:3341643:0:0:0
http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iDefrag.php